PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone else hope Extra Armor gets reworked?



Chapters Unwritten
13-03-2012, 15:30
I haven't taken extra armor on a vehicle since the old marine codex, and the more I think of why, it just keeps coming back to the same thing: Shaken is almost just as bad as stunned, the only real difference being for transports with a YOU MUST GET THERE NOW type of payload. But that honestly rarely comes up in my games, if at all; most of my troops are where they need to be when their tank finally goes down, or close enough to get there on foot reliably. I've never had a situation come up that made me go "Aw, if only I had taken extra armor!" Have you?

Jericho
13-03-2012, 15:37
It has another purpose, too... if you get stunned and a big nasty guy with a powerfist/melta bomb is waltzing up to your tank, you want to be able to move and avoid being auto-killed next turn.

Extra armor has its purpose, but I just think it's a bit pricey now as the prices of vehicles has come down in recent editions and the cost of extra armor went from a nickel to ... several nickels. In the era of vehicle spam, it's hard to afford it on a half dozen or more boxes.

AlphariusOmegon20
13-03-2012, 15:47
I'd like to see Extra Armor do what it really should do-add +1 value to your armor.

toonboy78
13-03-2012, 15:49
the problem i have with it is how often is it used??

say on a landraider, after your opponents hit, pen roll he stilll has to roll a 1in6 on the damage chart for it to be used.

if it always modified the damage result or you could always roll against the damage result then it may be better.

as it stands it is not that useful (other then when you need it!)

Theocracity
13-03-2012, 16:18
I haven't taken extra armor on a vehicle since the old marine codex, and the more I think of why, it just keeps coming back to the same thing: Shaken is almost just as bad as stunned, the only real difference being for transports with a YOU MUST GET THERE NOW type of payload. But that honestly rarely comes up in my games, if at all; most of my troops are where they need to be when their tank finally goes down, or close enough to get there on foot reliably. I've never had a situation come up that made me go "Aw, if only I had taken extra armor!" Have you?

Maybe it's only intended for vehicles that want to keep moving, then? Not everything has to be multipurposed.

Besides, vehicles are already really powerful. Making them more resilient would just add to the current metagame problems.

Chapters Unwritten
13-03-2012, 16:18
I'd like to see Extra Armor do what it really should do-add +1 value to your armor.For balance reasons, I doubt that would work, but I wouldn't mind it, for example, downgrading a pen to a glance on a roll, or even granting a save of some kind. What it does now is not a 15 point effect, honestly, at least as far as my games dictate. Especially when you can just disembark from a stunned vehicle and walk+run almost the same distance the "stuck" tank would have gotten you.

It is true that vehicles are more powerful but I'd almost rather the option just not be there, it has such a small role in the game.

Kevlar
13-03-2012, 16:47
Imperials do get screwed here. Most armies have armor upgrades way better than EA. Flicker fields, living metal, potms, dispruption pods, demonic possesson...

Cthell
13-03-2012, 16:53
'Cept for the eldar, who get exactly the same effect for a different name. Mind you, it's cheaper for us at least

meltedwing
13-03-2012, 16:56
I, for one, think extra armor costs way too much for way too little benefit. If it remains the cost it is, I would like to see it either grant a -1 to the chart roll or add 1 point of armor.

-1 to the chart roll would be my preference I think. Guaranteeing that a regular (read as not AP1) shot can't explode your tank would be nice. Also having glancing shots be at -3 (with extra armor) would be good as well. I think that would be well worth the points. Even just negating those AP1 bonuses would be pretty cool.

+1 to armor would be awesome as well, especially if it's all around as that would make transports armor 11 in the rear instead of armor 10, thus making them a little sturdier if they get assaulted.

As is, I never buy it.

MajorWesJanson
13-03-2012, 16:56
Just drop it in price to 10 and call it good.

Theocracity
13-03-2012, 16:57
Imperials do get screwed here. Most armies have armor upgrades way better than EA. Flicker fields, living metal, potms, dispruption pods, demonic possesson...

Imperials get smoke launchers too. Not to mention all the vehicles that get EA built in (Valkyries, for example).


-1 to the chart roll would be my preference I think. Guaranteeing that a regular (read as not AP1) shot can't explode your tank would be nice. Also having glancing shots be at -3 (with extra armor) would be good as well. I think that would be well worth the points. Even just negating those AP1 bonuses would be pretty cool.

Do you love that feeling you get when your last 'this needs to work' anti tank shot rolls a 1 on the damage chart? Now you can get that feeling on even more dice results! :P

Frankly I think vehicle resilience, and its associated effect on the metagame, is already over the top. Let's not make it worse.

Ozendorph
13-03-2012, 17:07
The Extra Armor effect is fine (imo, obviously), as the ability to move is a big deal in most cases. Transporting troops? Want to find cover? Rather not be thunder hammered into oblivion? And so on.

The 15 point standard was an overreaction to every single vehicle having EA at 5pts. GW would have done well to take a baby step and settle at 10 points...maybe they'll adjust in 6th

Konovalev
13-03-2012, 17:10
I'd like to see extra armor work something like modern ERA panels to become reactive armor. 15pts lets you ignore the first penetrating/glancing hit the vehicle takes with a caveat that it doesn't ignore ordnance(though it will still be used up if penned/glanced by ordnance.)

Theocracity
13-03-2012, 17:12
I'd like to see extra armor work something like modern ERA panels to become reactive armor. 15pts lets you ignore the first penetrating/glancing hit the vehicle takes with a caveat that it doesn't ignore ordnance(though it will still be used up if penned/glanced by ordnance.)

That's already in effect for Necron in the form of Quantum Shielding. I doubt the Imperium is savvy enough to use reactive armor anyway; they're more in the business of big heavy plating.

meltedwing
13-03-2012, 18:02
Frankly I think vehicle resilience, and its associated effect on the metagame, is already over the top. Let's not make it worse.

I definitely do not share this perspective. Especially when Thunderhammer/Stormshield Terminators have a greater survivability than a Land Raider when hit with a melta shot at close range. Especially when someone drop pods in a group of guys with combi-meltas and turns your "high resilience" tank into a pile of slag, while a unit of the aforementioned Terminators would just kind of laugh it off 2/3's of the time. If anything I think vehicles are too easy to pop, rather than too difficult.

Konovalev
13-03-2012, 18:05
I definitely do not share this perspective. Especially when Thunderhammer/Stormshield Terminators have a greater survivability than a Land Raider when hit with a melta shot at close range. Especially when someone drop pods in a group of guys with combi-meltas and turns your "high resilience" tank into a pile of slag, while a unit of the aforementioned Terminators would just kind of laugh it off 2/3's of the time. If anything I think vehicles are too easy to pop, rather than too difficult.

What do you think happens to the squad carrying that combi-melta though? Killing higher AV vehicles tends to be a KP trade and I think that is the issue many people have with current vehicles.

Ozendorph
13-03-2012, 18:05
I doubt the Imperium is savvy enough to use reactive armor anyway; they're more in the business of big heavy plating.

They used to be savvy enough, but that was a few editions ago (ablative armor)

Jericho
13-03-2012, 18:19
+1 armor saves? For reals? People want to see AV13 Dreads, AV14 Ironclads, and AV15 Land Raiders/Leman Russ? You gotta be kidding me :p

A save against glancing hits or shaken/stunned results could be an option, I suppose, but realistically I don't see them making a drastic change like that, which would impact at least a half dozen books. I think the slightly more expensive transports with slightly cheaper options (the old 50+5 recipe) made sense, the current price model not so much. But hey, transports are a good money sink so why not keep them cheap in 6th...

Toadius80
13-03-2012, 18:40
I'm in the view, as others have mentioned, it should ignore the first pen/glance. After all, it is supposed to be extra plates an what have you attached to the exterior thus its effect would be consistent to the fluff unlike the current.

Sent from my God Like Device using TapaTalk

Lord Damocles
13-03-2012, 18:48
It's fine as is.

A little too expensive on things with Power of the Machine Spirit and/or Fortitude, but then they've got Power of the Machine Spirit and/or Fortitude, so who the hell cares?


Downgrading Stunned to Shaken is extremely useful in quite a number of situations:
- Countering first turn traffic jams
- Tank Shock!
- Getting out of assault [range]
- Making sure that your transport can actually transport it's contents rather than sitting unable to move all game

trigger
13-03-2012, 18:55
+1 armor saves? For reals? People want to see AV13 Dreads, AV14 Ironclads, and AV15 Land Raiders/Leman Russ? You gotta be kidding me :p

A save against glancing hits or shaken/stunned results could be an option, I suppose, but realistically I don't see them making a drastic change like that, which would impact at least a half dozen books. I think the slightly more expensive transports with slightly cheaper options (the old 50+5 recipe) made sense, the current price model not so much. But hey, transports are a good money sink so why not keep them cheap in 6th...
I totally agree the +1 idea is silly and not well thought of

but....
3rd ed transports good
4th ed transports bad
5th ed transports good

I'm going with 6th they will be naff again.

Poncho160
13-03-2012, 19:15
Im of the opiion that EA should be a one time only effect of ignoring the first glancing / penetrating hit. Thats how the extra armour should work.

+1 to armour levels would be too much, without an accompanying price rise.

Theocracity
13-03-2012, 19:50
I definitely do not share this perspective. Especially when Thunderhammer/Stormshield Terminators have a greater survivability than a Land Raider when hit with a melta shot at close range. Especially when someone drop pods in a group of guys with combi-meltas and turns your "high resilience" tank into a pile of slag, while a unit of the aforementioned Terminators would just kind of laugh it off 2/3's of the time. If anything I think vehicles are too easy to pop, rather than too difficult.

I don't mean to be (too) snarky, but do you have advice for armies that don't have drop pod combi-meltas and terminator armor?

One key difference between Terminators and Land Raiders is that it's not statistically impossible for a Gretchin to kill a Terminator. Melta can kill either. Therefore, if you use weapons that can't kill vehicles you're screwed; you're better off taking a weapon that could kill vehicles well and kills heavy infantry sort of okay.

Making vehicles tougher incentivizes using only anti-vehicle weapons even more, because now you need more redundancy to get the same effect.

Chapters Unwritten
13-03-2012, 19:51
A save that is lost the first time it's failed could work, too.

Monospot
13-03-2012, 20:05
Ask Ork Battlewagons with Deffrollas how important extra armor is....darn near vital.

Szalik
13-03-2012, 20:13
Ignoring the first penetrating hit would be ok in my opinion.

big squig
13-03-2012, 21:11
extra armor is a must if your playing with vehicles. It allows you to still move and units that move win games.

Chem-Dog
13-03-2012, 22:45
Downgrading Stunned to Shaken is extremely useful in quite a number of situations:
- Countering first turn traffic jams
- Tank Shock!
- Getting out of assault [range]
- Making sure that your transport can actually transport it's contents rather than sitting unable to move all game

All the reasons I routinely take EA on every single Tank I use in my Steel Legion army, getting prevented from shooting sucks bad enough but it's nothing compared to Johnny Chainfist's tender caress while you've been fumbling with the keys in the ignition.



but....
3rd ed transports good
4th ed transports bad
5th ed transports good

Same as Chaos Codexes.....Coincidence?! :eyebrows:

The simplest fix I can think for Extra Armour would be to allow the owning player to decide which effect Shaken has on his Vehicle, Being able to scoot is fine for transports and vehicles that benefit from staying mobile but it of precious little use to Captain Basilisk (or Brother Sergeant Whirlwind). Discount Can't Move or Can't Shoot.

Now, do you run away from that lone Obliterator or do you hose him? :evilgrin:

Theocracity
13-03-2012, 22:58
The simplest fix I can think for Extra Armour would be to allow the owning player to decide which effect Shaken has on his Vehicle, Being able to scoot is fine for transports and vehicles that benefit from staying mobile but it of precious little use to Captain Basilisk (or Brother Sergeant Whirlwind). Discount Can't Move or Can't Shoot.

I like the idea! Though I wouldn't give the choice to the unit that's getting shot - its not like you rationally choose which systems still function when you're taking hits. I'd give the choice to the shooting player, as that way he can have some degree of control over what he's firing at - stop that transport, or silence that tank.

Chem-Dog
13-03-2012, 23:36
its not like you rationally choose which systems still function when you're taking hits.

No, but as an experienced tank crew with years/decades/centuries of practical experience, you'd know where to put those extra plates to make sure the most vital systems are best protected.
If a bad jolt is likely to screw a system, you make sure that that system is backed up or better protected than it would be in the factory default.

Slat armour, for example, perfect example of additional stuff bolted on to fighting vehicles to mitigate certain weaknesses in a particular set of circumstances.

ehlijen
13-03-2012, 23:43
Extra armour doesn't need a fix. It used to be a no brainer, but now you actually need a reason to take it, which is as it should be.

What it does is allow you to try avoid the second shot of whatever just managed to stun you. That's a big deal, especially in CC. Or you know, keep up the reckless race for the enemy lines with a transport.

meltedwing
14-03-2012, 01:05
I don't mean to be (too) snarky, but do you have advice for armies that don't have drop pod combi-meltas and terminator armor?

One key difference between Terminators and Land Raiders is that it's not statistically impossible for a Gretchin to kill a Terminator. Melta can kill either. Therefore, if you use weapons that can't kill vehicles you're screwed; you're better off taking a weapon that could kill vehicles well and kills heavy infantry sort of okay.

Making vehicles tougher incentivizes using only anti-vehicle weapons even more, because now you need more redundancy to get the same effect.

Well, let's see. Tau have railguns. Eldar and Dark Eldar both have fairly long range tank popping weapons...

Is there even a single army out there that can't throw a strength 8, 9 or 10 shot across the board? Even Nids have those barrage weapons, not that I remember what their strength is.

Not that I'm committed to the idea of +1 armor (as thats pretty hoopty) or -1 on the chart (as that is also pretty hoopty), but the current iteration of extra armor is just lame. When you get shot, you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling exactly the thing that it affects, and all it does is change it to "can't shoot". That's a very situationally desirable item that statistically doesn't kick in all that much and could very well create a situation you absolutely don't want. Like if you have a long range weapon toting vehicle that doesn't need to move in the given situation and got tagged from 48+ inches away and now can't shoot. Lame.

I think there are much better things that EA could be doing, like others mentioned, negating the first pen/glance would be cool. At least you're guaranteed that it will do something during the battle (assuming you get damaged at all, and if you aren't then hey, no complaints!).

ehlijen
14-03-2012, 03:17
That's a very situationally desirable item that statistically doesn't kick in all that much and could very well create a situation you absolutely don't want. Like if you have a long range weapon toting vehicle that doesn't need to move in the given situation and got tagged from 48+ inches away and now can't shoot. Lame.


Extra armour never makes things worse. All it does it lift a restriction in some cases. If you get stunned but didn't want to move, EA did nothing bad to you. If you don't think you'll need it, don't take it.
If you wish to sit there and take a second hit from the gun that just stunned you and not even try to move into cover, don't take EA.

And for there being a 1/6 chance of it actually being useful: so what, many things you buy without knowing you'll need them. Power weapons cost similar points and might not actually help (target could have an invul save or might have failed the armour save anyway) or you might buy an invul save and never get hit with an armour ignoring attack. And as EA tends to cost less than one sixth of the vehicle + cargo it goes on, I don't see the big deal.

Aliarzathanil
14-03-2012, 04:14
Vehicles, especially cheap transports are good enough without ignoring pens and getting improved armor.

Bergen Beerbelly
14-03-2012, 05:44
Having EA ignore the first glancing/penetrating hit is rediculous. Imperial vehicles already get awesome things to help them basically ignore the core rules of the game, like Power of the Machine Spirit, and you guys want even more? Sometimes that one penetrating hit on an imperial vehicle is a xenos's only chance at destroying something, like say, a Land Raider. Which is hard enough for xenos like Orks to penetrate anyway. Basically what your asking is for something like a land raider to be impervious to everything long enough to get your deathstar unit to exactly where you want it without any kind of danger to the tank before it's too late.

It usually only takes 2 turns to get a Land Raider to where it needs to be with it's cargo. on the way in, it can already ignore every single hit with smoke launchers on a 4+ in one turn, still fire a weapon system even if it's stunned, and keep on moving due to EA. Making it ignore the first glancing/penetrating hit would just make people spend way too much firepower to take it out.

I'm sure some people are thinking that isn't so bad, but what if there are 4 of them on the field?...now almost your entire army can make it across the table in total safety.....how in any way is that considered fair for any non imperial army?

Oppressor
14-03-2012, 07:04
I think that extra armor's affect is fine. It's extra armor's points cost that is too high. Drop it down to 10points at the least.

Theocracity
14-03-2012, 16:33
Well, let's see. Tau have railguns. Eldar and Dark Eldar both have fairly long range tank popping weapons...

Is there even a single army out there that can't throw a strength 8, 9 or 10 shot across the board? Even Nids have those barrage weapons, not that I remember what their strength is.

Not that I'm committed to the idea of +1 armor (as thats pretty hoopty) or -1 on the chart (as that is also pretty hoopty), but the current iteration of extra armor is just lame. When you get shot, you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling exactly the thing that it affects, and all it does is change it to "can't shoot". That's a very situationally desirable item that statistically doesn't kick in all that much and could very well create a situation you absolutely don't want. Like if you have a long range weapon toting vehicle that doesn't need to move in the given situation and got tagged from 48+ inches away and now can't shoot. Lame.

I think there are much better things that EA could be doing, like others mentioned, negating the first pen/glance would be cool. At least you're guaranteed that it will do something during the battle (assuming you get damaged at all, and if you aren't then hey, no complaints!).

Discussing xenos anti-tank options is kind of off topic so I won't dwell on it, except to say that having a few S8 shots doesn't fill most armies with confidence - especially if the dreaded vehicle damage chart can negate even more than it already does.

Beyond that, I think Ehlijen said it well. Extra armor is a useful and not too expensive option for the vehicles that utilize its benefits, and unnessecary on vehicles who don't.


No, but as an experienced tank crew with years/decades/centuries of practical experience, you'd know where to put those extra plates to make sure the most vital systems are best protected.
If a bad jolt is likely to screw a system, you make sure that that system is backed up or better protected than it would be in the factory default.

Slat armour, for example, perfect example of additional stuff bolted on to fighting vehicles to mitigate certain weaknesses in a particular set of circumstances.

Right, but this is 40K... you wouldn't want to anger the machine spirit by distrusting its holy form in ways that are not blessed by its holy STC. ;)

On a more serious note, for that rationale to make sense you'd have to choose which system you're protecting at game start. Otherwise multiple stun results could affect different systems, which wouldn't make sense - are they shifting armor plating mid battle? From a game point of view I also prefer the shooting player keeping control in his turn - I think it could provoke more interesting tactical decisions.

Johnnyb
14-03-2012, 18:04
I actually find that shaken and stunned results are mostly pointless....... But then again I play Templars and have extra armour and machine spirit on everything!!

On a serious note I would only ever consider taking EA on Rhino's and Razors, probably the same for every other PA player out there

insectum7
15-03-2012, 08:28
extra armor is a must if your playing with vehicles. It allows you to still move and units that move win games.

Agree 100% on that. The only Vehicle I don't put the EA on is the Whirlwind. And honestly, for Rhino's I think of it as pretty much free since the Cost of Rhinos dropped to 35 in this edition.

If anything, make Rhino's cost more and EA cheaper :)


That said, I put it on my LR's mostly because it looks the nutz. Sometimes it comes in handy though. Think of it as reducing the chance of not being able to move by half.

blurrymadness
15-03-2012, 09:28
Mostly useful right now on dreads and things; still too spendy. I would like them to change it to modify the damage table, chance pens to glances on a d6 roll of 1 or 2, or similar.

On that note, I want AP1 do go back to Glances become Pens instead of Instant Explode Result Forever Ever.

orkmiester
15-03-2012, 11:15
I definitely do not share this perspective. Especially when Thunderhammer/Stormshield Terminators have a greater survivability than a Land Raider when hit with a melta shot at close range. Especially when someone drop pods in a group of guys with combi-meltas and turns your "high resilience" tank into a pile of slag, while a unit of the aforementioned Terminators would just kind of laugh it off 2/3's of the time. If anything I think vehicles are too easy to pop, rather than too difficult.

i find that these situations tend to depend upon the dice playing their usual tricks.

some games despite having a good spread of AT weapons on both sides i've had it where i have lost only 1 or 2 vehicles in the whole game, then in another one you lose quite a few:wtf:

though TH/SS termies, in my humble opinion, are not all that they are cracked up to be. They don't like it when they get screwed very quickly:shifty:

though on GK vehicles... why would you bother taking EA? fortitude is far better and is basically factored in at a 5pts increase from the normal cost of marine vehicles:eyebrows:

i think EA should be reduced in cost to about 10pts, it seems a little more 'balanced' at that cost.

however i can't say too much- my chaos vindicators are always a laughing point, Daemonic possession is too useful these days. I suspect a few out there still feel it is a little:cheese: even if it costs quite a bit...

just my humble view:angel:

Narf
15-03-2012, 14:56
dreadnought, these are the only things that get EA in my army, means i can always move unless immobilised.

cost - high, could be lowered, but is very useful under certain circumstance, maybe change the cost depending on use.

Function - quite happy with it as it is, but an invul save first time taking a glance or pen would also be good instead.

'IllBillyOrk
16-03-2012, 16:39
The thing i havent understood is why ther seems to be a division if moving s really worht it or not. I role Orkz so to me stationary means death so i keep extra armour on nething that can take it except Kanz but thats squadron rules. I have hadextra armour keep my trukks continuing forward through many shots (well nething thats S6 and below lol). Now i have only played 40k for a few years now and even then deloyments put a damper on it so im not entirely sure how points look in other codexes so y not adjust points to the army using em?

Motsognir
16-03-2012, 18:45
If you look at the leakhammerrules Extra Armour might get more usefull in 6th edition if they keep the the "Hull broken" rules where multiple stuns get upgraded to weapon destroyed,...

Chapters Unwritten
16-03-2012, 20:04
Please don't call that thing a leak, it's a complete fraud and has been debunked many, many times.

Theocracity
16-03-2012, 20:45
Please don't call that thing a leak, it's a complete fraud and has been debunked many, many times.

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. There's still doubt over whether it was once a GW document, even if it has been debunked as an actual copy of what 6th will be - more 'discarded developer ideas' than 'complete fraud.'

But your general point is correct; we shouldn't base any predictions on it, as any or all of it is subject to change.

meltedwing
16-03-2012, 20:55
Please don't call that thing a leak, it's a complete fraud and has been debunked many, many times.

Fraud would mean that GW had no hand in creating it. Leaked means that they did and it got out unintentionally.

GW already admitted it was theirs, and that it was fun for them to play with, but that it was too highly abuse-able and thus worthless and so they ditched it. At least that's what their press release said.

Theocracity
16-03-2012, 20:58
Fraud would mean that GW had no hand in creating it. Leaked means that they did and it got out unintentionally.

GW already admitted it was theirs, and that it was fun for them to play with, but that it was too highly abuse-able and thus worthless and so they ditched it. At least that's what their press release said.

Eh? I didn't think there was a press release, just word from a reliable source with an explanation that fit the facts. I don't think GW ever addressed it officially. I'd look it up but frankly this discussion is off thread topic already :P.

xavos
27-03-2012, 15:40
Literally add extra armour, as someone else said: 6+/+1 invulnerable save or a one-use ablative shield (4+ or whatever) would be nice and simple.

jt.glass
28-03-2012, 12:59
I'd like to see Extra Armor do what it really should do-add +1 value to your armor.Wouldn't that make it a basically auto-take option, unless it was ridiculously expensive?

EDIT: Another thought...what if Shaken was "can't move or can't shoot (defender chooses)", and Stunned was "can't move or can't shoot (attacker chooses)", then extra armour would be useful to all kinds of vehicles.


jt.

Theocracity
28-03-2012, 16:54
Literally add extra armour, as someone else said: 6+/+1 invulnerable save or a one-use ablative shield (4+ or whatever) would be nice and simple.

It seems like the big problem with extra armor is that it is called 'extra armor.' The effect is fine and balanced, but people seem to expect something completely different based on their interpretation of the name :P.

Elios Harg
28-03-2012, 17:12
It seems like the big problem with extra armor is that it is called 'extra armor.' The effect is fine and balanced, but people seem to expect something completely different based on their interpretation of the name :P.

I'd like to see Extra Armor changed to be like a one shot flicker field or something similar. They could then keep the existing Extra Armor effect and change the name to something like Reinforced Crew Compartment.

IcedAnimals
28-03-2012, 20:58
It seems like the big problem with extra armor is that it is called 'extra armor.' The effect is fine and balanced, but people seem to expect something completely different based on their interpretation of the name :P.

The effect would be "fine and balanced" if it cost 5 points. I actually wouldn't mind seeing its price double and then it granting +1 to armor value. If people want to pay twice the price of a rhino to upgrade their rhino to av 12 that seems reasonable. If people want to throw 30 more points onto their land raider to make it "even more unkillable!" when the only weapons that are used to kill it anyways would still do so (melta and lances would still make short work of an av 15 LR) I see no issue. I also wouldn't mind it staying at 15 points if it granted +1 to the vehicles save. So normally it gives the vehicle a 6+ invuln. Not really reliable but something that at least works more than once every 20 enemy shots. Perhaps making it so the turn a vehicle has smoke popped it has a 3+ instead of a 4+ but it could not effect cover saves and I think it would still be a much better improvement. (And the fact my sisters rhinos would have a 5+ invuln has nothing to do with it! >.>)

Theocracity
28-03-2012, 22:18
You know, 'balanced' isn't synonymous with 'I think would be awesome' ;). I can't imagine a Space Marine player in the world who wouldn't pay 30 points to make their Land Raiders immune to S8.

All I can see from what you describe is a depressing landscape of only melta and lance weaponry, packed into as many nigh unkillable vehicles as possible, fruitlessly plinking away at each other with ineffective weapons as they play bumper cars for objectives at game end....

Rated_lexxx
28-03-2012, 22:19
Not all options for anything are the best option. Extra armor has it purpose just not on tanks. On transports its a godsend. My battlewagon always take it because it's purpose is to transport orks and run over people with it's deff rolla.

Cthell
28-03-2012, 22:24
Just to point out, they tried the +1AV with the 3.5ed CSM codex - called it mutated hull.

Cost way more than extra armour, but that was back when the "most unstoppable vehicle" title didn't automatically go to the Space Marine codex (daemonic & parasitic possesion, along with mutated hull, on an iron warriors Vindicator was frankly even more broken than power of the machine spirit on a storm raven).

Chapters Unwritten
29-03-2012, 01:31
Yes, because the Stormraven is known for being brutally unfair. -_-

Tell me which marine vehicle is "Most Unstoppable" this edition, as long as we've got this fount of knowledge going I'm curious.

ehlijen
29-03-2012, 01:59
That'd be the chonusader. Unshakable, unstunnable and upped BS for all guns.

But the thing is: extra armour used to be 5 points. It was a no brainer on anything with a transport hatch or DNCCW. The current price is about right: you take it only when you think it'll help, which is exactly how upgrades should be costed.

Sparowl
29-03-2012, 02:07
A.) it doesn't need to be "fixed" because there isn't anything wrong with it.

B.) it certainly doesn't need a buff when this edition already has crazy tank rules.

SniperDan84
30-03-2012, 00:19
...But the thing is: extra armour used to be 5 points. It was a no brainer on anything with a transport hatch or DNCCW. The current price is about right: you take it only when you think it'll help, which is exactly how upgrades should be costed.

Another reason 5 point extra armour was taken on everything was that in the 4th edition Vehicle Damage chart, all penetrating hits caused Crew Stunned in addition to their results (obviously didn't matter when the vehicle was destroyed). 5 points was an obvious steal. In 5th edition, 15 seems to be a bit much for something that only affects 1/6 of the damage rolls. I'd argue 10 is a better cost for what you get.

Since the thread seems to be more about what could change extra armour to be better a thought I had would be to increase the AV of a vehicle's weakest facing, if all 3 are the same, it would improve the front armour (drop pods can't get it...what's the front?). It would definitely need to be a bit more (I'd say 20-25 points) but shouldn't be ground breaking. It would then help all vehicles in the codex, and would be something worth considering. I'd be concerned about it breaking Land Raiders, but that would become a 300 point tank for 15 on one side.

ehlijen
30-03-2012, 01:13
Even in 3rd ed when extra armour was 5 points and the vehicle damage table only had a one in six chance of having a stunned result, extra armour was considered a no brainer on anything trying to get close.

It has never been equally useful on all vehicles, and really shouldn't be. Just like searchlights aren't useful on basilisks and camo netting isn't useful on a banewolf. The option is there because outside the very narrow scope that is the 40k tabletop, such upgrades could make sense, or at least more sense than excluding them, so they were kept for completeness.

I believe the current cost is fair for most transports and combat walkers. Gun vehicles could do with 10 points,but more isn't the end of the world.